AMD EPYC 9755 / 9575F / 9965 Benchmarks Show Dominating Performance

[sophisticles]

@coder

So, considering that Trump is projected to win both the popular vote and the electoral count, what does that tell you about the Liberal, Leftist, "joyful" campaign, about Biden and Kamala, when the American public clearly decided that a so-called conman, Russian puppet, dictator wannabe, racist, danger to democracy is the better choice?

[coder]

Oh yeah, it really benefited him.

He does it for his ego and he even said, during the 2016 campaign, that he was going to make money off the campaign, even if he didn't win.

He used the Presidency to elevate the Trump brand, hoping it would benefit his businesses (including the newly-opened Trump hotel in Washington DC, where many visiting diplomats stayed). He also had a practice of having the Secret Service stay at Trump properties and charged them excessive rates.

He was impeached twice, indicted four times, has civil judgments issued against him in excess of 600 million dollars and they tried to kill him twice.

What matters is his intent, not whether it worked out for him in the end. If you try to rob a bank and fail, you're still guilty of a crime.

According to CNN Trumps net worth went down from 2016 to 2020 from 3.7 billion to 2.5 billion:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/forbes-400-donald-trump-wealth/index.html

Geez. Try actually reading your links, for once! They explain:

"Why the dip in Trump’s fortune? The coronavirus pandemic. The value of office buildings, hotels and resorts have taken a hit amid the pandemic,"

Income, estate, capital gains, inheritance and property taxes are by definition unfair, punish success and in the end do not accomplish anything as evidenced by the fact that the national debt keeps ballooning.

Taxes pay for services, including national security. Just by living here, you benefit from national defense, the justice system to keep you and your property safe, the coordination of national infrastructure, the activities of FCC and NIST to establish a foundation for all the technology infrastructure on which we depend, etc. Heck, even if you don't drive, you still benefit from the department of transportation for ensuring that goods can be transported with relative safety and efficiency.

In some measure, economic activity can serve as a rough proxy for reliance on these systems and services, which is why I think it's fair to tax income. To the extent that you benefit from government protection of your property and assets, there's some argument to be made for property taxes, although I think they should be a lot lower than income.

As for whether taxes accomplish anything, if you look at the deficit and eliminate tax revenue, the debt would explode so fast that we'd run out of money virtually over night! Just because taxes and spending have gotten out of step doesn't mean that taxes are pointless!

If you confiscated through taxation every single penny every billionaire in America has the U.S. government would get 6.1 trillion dollars:

FWIW, I don't think the solution is as simple as "tax the rich". They do need to pay their fair share, but so does everyone else.

More importantly, what we need to do is replace all taxes with a consumption tax, like sales taxes, and make it progressive, like the luxury tax.

We could do something like a flat 10% sales tax on any item under 40k, 15% on anything between 40k and 100k, and 20% on anything over 100k.

That's regressive (disproportionately hurts people who turn around and spend the majority of their income). The next problem is that if you tax spending too much, then people will buy less, which is bad for the economy. Finally, people who can afford to save and invest most of their income will end up with much more than everyone else, which just leads to greater wealth inequality.

Wealth inequality correlates with many different societal problems. It's corrosive to society, if too much of the wealth is too concentrated. If the wealthy don't want to be confined to gated compounds, for most of their life, then it's really in their interest for the wealth to be shared more broadly.

In order to get broader support we could say a flat 15% income and capital gains tax.

We're more in agreement, here.

And we could stop spending money like a child with his parents credit card.

Spending (which includes tax breaks) indeed needs to be brought into better alignment with revenues.

Because no where does he actually say he would use the military against his political enemies.

He does mention the National Guard and Military, and says he would use them against the enemy within but that's not what his enemies are claiming he said.

Also, the National Guard is the part of the Military and they are already used domestically, in fact that is their purpose.

The National Guard is very rarely used in policing-type actions, and only in true emergencies when the police can't cope with the situation by themselves. Using the military on civilians denies them due process. You shouldn't advocate for any such policies that you wouldn't like to be used against you by another administration. Even if Trump wins, the shoe may one day eventually end up on the other foot.

Also, do you not care that Trump's own staffers, including generals and his longest-serving chief of staff have published an open letter warning against re-electing him? This is quite an unprecedented move. These are not lefty liberals and it's not as if they were all fired by Trump, either. You should read what they had to say.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/25/never-trump-former-officials-back-kelly-warning-00185435

[coder]

I think it was the Daily News that published a front page story about Trump with huge picture, raking him over the coals, with a bs story that was debunked within 24 hours.

Ut took them 2 weeks to publish a correction, in the back of the newspaper right before the sports section starts, small 3 lines that said the story we ran was not correct, we retract the story. They didn't put a front page story to tell people they were wrong, they put a snippet that most people would miss.

Isn't New York Daily News a tabloid? Tabloids publish all sorts of junk.

For me what really drove the brainwashing home was Halloween weekend right before the 2020 elections.

One of the cable channels that runs horror movies all month of October was running a Resident Evil marathon.

At first I didn't notice what they were doing, it was almost subliminal but I realized what i was seeing when the commercials would come on.

During the movie, in the upper left hand corner, there was a tiny message overlayed that said "This is what happens when you don't vote".

The message would disappear during the commercials and come on during the movie.

RE is inspired by the video game about a contagion created by an evil corporation that is released on purpose and turns people into blood thirsty zombies.

Tell me that it's not a form of election interference, a form of brain washing, to display such a message during such a movie a couple of days before the election.

This was a "cable channel", you say? Was it local, or one of the big national ones? I'd guess it was probably some low level employee's idea of a joke.

You can see the same shit this election, the main stream media is so in the bag for Kamala it's sad.

Trump says something they fact check him in real time, during the debate, even when the fact check is wrong, Kamala says something there's no pushback.

What did she say that you think they should've corrected?

Trump is a pathological liar. He can't talk for even a couple minutes without spewing blatant lies. He does it for all kinds of reasons, and he's learned that if you say something with enough conviction and in absolute terms, many people will think there might be at least some truth to it, especially if it aligns with their beliefs, values, or preconceptions.

The day after the debate there was a website that was going to fact check both candidates, before they did they published a disclaimer apologizing for fact checking Kamala but claiming they wanted to be fair.

Who made the website? If it were a serious media organization, I think they wouldn't put such an apology.

[mSparks]

Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and China don't have a free press. They are also allied, and thus share common world views.

So, once you bought into this "CIA control of western media" conspiracy theory, you pretty much left yourself open to all the propaganda being pushed out by these other governments. What's funny to me is how you reject all Western media because it might be tainted by some government influence (which I very much reject), and instead you're opting to believe media that is very clearly state-controlled. It makes no sense, if you're really trying to avoid state control, as you claim.

Well, absolutely agree they dont have a press that can do or say whatever they want - most of that is the product of decades of subversion by the Anglo-Saxon cult of Jeffrey Epstein.

The difference however is they don't put the same beer goggle filters on what they write about the cult of Jeffrey Epstein, and unlike what you are calling a "free press" they are (more or less) absolutely free to write about what the cult of jeffrey epstein is doing.

I saw the deputy PM of 🇷🇸 do a really good job of explaining that situation a day or two ago on RT

https://www.rt.com/news/606682-west-trying-rewrite-history/

Stories like that are literally illegal in the UK and Europe (Germany just sent a couple to prison for reposting them), and I very much doubt you will find analogues in US media.

[sophisticles]

But, why do you want to repeat the same mistakes with North Korea, who's not only worse on all of those fronts but is effectively a state-backed criminal enterprise? Normalizing relations with China and letting it into the WTO didn't ultimately make it more free, so why would you think the outcome for North Korea would be any different?

The difference between China and NK is that China is not technically divided, unless you want to count Taiwan and there are numerous people with SK and NK that want reunification and China not not technically at war with anyone, unlike the Koreas which are still technically at war.

Kim Jong Short Fat Man is clearly itching for a scrap, he fires missiles over Japan onto the ocean, he threatens Australia, he sends troop to fight alongside the Russians, he is desperate because of the sanctions against his country and a wounded animal is a very dangerous animal, especially when i t has nuclear weapons.

We disarm NK with luxuries, make their life so conformable that they can't imagine going to war.

When Abu Ghraib first came to light, there was a retired CIA agent that said he had never used torture to get information.

What he would do is ply the prisoner with luxuries, good food, warm clothing, TV, radio. comfortable bed let them get used to it for a few days and then take it away and promise it would be returned when they talked.

The info they got was reliable and the prisoners were more likely to volunteer additional info in the hopes of getting additional rewards.


I say we use the same approach with NK.

[sophisticles]

You must be misremembering, because if we assume the population of North Vietnam was about 20M at the time, that's about $1T/year. The US GDP was only about $700B, in 1965.

Not everyone in North Vietnam was Viet Cong, the actual numbers were much lower, I think there were only 300k by 1962, they were the Vietnamese Communists aligned with China that really pushed for the fighting.

Bribe them to get lost and things would have been much different.

It's their country, so it should be their decision. They haven't given up, so why should we force them to?

It's the Ukrainians country but it's America's money and weapons and instead of the war winding down it is escalating, North Korean troops fighting in this war is not good and the State Department has said if it finds NK troops in forward positions it will require American military intervention.

America must not send troops into active combat deployments in that war, it triggers a world war that will be catastrophic.

That said, I think if you're going to support them, then it should be fully and not with such limits and constraints as we've been doing. Ukraine needs the ability to stop the attacks against it, and that includes being able to go after airstrips and missile launch sites in Russia.

If that's the case why limit it to conventional weapons and not give them nukes?

Irradiate the whole damn planet while you're at it.

Again, nobody can decide this but Israel. I'll tell you this: Trump definitely won't give them shit. He doesn't actually care about achieving peace, there. He's buddies with Netanyahu, because he thinks it benefits him politically. The "Muslim Ban" President also has no love for the Palestinians.

If they truly want peace in that region then that's what they will do.

Appeasement didn't ultimately stop WW II. It just made it worse, once it actually did happen.

There were no ICBMs, nuclear weapons, or other advanced armaments. this is very different from WWII, we have much better weapons than fighting a war such as agreeing to open trade with these countries.

Yes, reward the bad behavior, if it means we don't fire thousands of nukes at one another,

If Trump wins this time, he's said he'll fire Jack Smith and put an end to this case (which isn't something he can legally do, but a lot of people accept that he'll probably end the investigation one way or another).

I have heard legal experts who say he can stop the federal cases because the DOJ is under the Executive branch and POTUS is head of the Executive.

He can also pardon himself of federal charges, so any trial would be moot anyway.

The Russian involvement in his 2016 campaign was real. Muller's investigation found numerous interactions and perhaps attempts at collusion, but no proof of actual collusion.

He also encountered about a dozen noted instances where his investigation was illegally obstructed, so it's quite possible that damning evidence was concealed or destroyed. Obstruction of justice is a crime and rarely something people do, unless they're trying to hide evidence of even more severe crimes.

Let me ask you something, Russia attacked Georgia in 2008, in 2014 they attack Ukraine and in 2022 Russia attacked Ukraine again.

Bush was president for the first, Obama was president for the second, Biden was president for the third.

Do you find it odd that the only time Russia didn't attack it's neighbors was when a supposed Russian puppet that Putin wanted in the White house was in charge?

Wouldn't it make more sense that Putin would attack when he had the POTUS he wanted in office?

[sophisticles]

He's a con man first and foremost because he says he wants the Presidency for the good of the country, but it's really just about using the power and prestige of the office to benefit himself and his allies. That's not to say he hasn't done things for his supporters, but it's not supposed to be such a "winner takes all" system.

Oh yeah, it really benefited him.

He was impeached twice, indicted four times, has civil judgments issued against him in excess of 600 million dollars and they tried to kill him twice.

Probably just the way he envisioned it going down.

According to CNN Trumps net worth went down from 2016 to 2020 from 3.7 billion to 2.5 billion:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/forbes-400-donald-trump-wealth/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_Donald_Trump

I bet he can't wait to lose another couple of billion by being president again.

By the way is there anyone that doesn't want the prestige of being president? Kamala has explicitly said people should vote for her to so she can be the first female POTUS, which is funny considering when she talks about transgenders she has trouble defining what a woman is.

Taxes ultimately have to be paid by someone. Before George W. Bush, most Republicans believed in keeping revenues (taxes) and spending in balance. Bush 43 decided he didn't care about any of that and started increasing the debt to fund them. His excuse was initially the economic downturn following 9/11, but Trump did it even though the economy was strong.

Bush 43 was a guy that was in it for himself and his cronies.

He moved away from Republican principles because he needed to pay for two wars and to make his defense contractor buddies rich.

Now he was a guy that was a con man, couldn't stand the guy, ruined the Republican brand and ruined America.

Taxes - In order to make it easier to read, all this to be a placeholder for your taxes comments

Income, estate, capital gains, inheritance and property taxes are by definition unfair, punish success and in the end do not accomplish anything as evidenced by the fact that the national debt keeps ballooning.

If you confiscated through taxation every single penny every billionaire in America has the U.S. government would get 6.1 trillion dollars:

https://inequality.org/great-divide/billionaire-wealth-keeps-growing/

The national debt is 35.1 trillion:

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-debt/

In 2024, the U.S government has spent 6.75 trillion dollars:

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/

Meaning if you take all the money that every billionaire in the U.S. has, it still wouldn't have been enough to pay for everything the U.S. did and there would be no more money from them next year.

Raising taxes is not the answer, reducing government spending is.

More importantly, what we need to do is replace all taxes with a consumption tax, like sales taxes, and make it progressive, like the luxury tax.

We could do something like a flat 10% sales tax on any item under 40k, 15% on anything between 40k and 100k, and 20% on anything over 100k.

In order to get broader support we could say a flat 15% income and capital gains tax.

And we could stop spending money like a child with his parents credit card.

Trump has made further statements about how he'd use the military against his opponents:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YwVxLgWaTY

By law, he cannot do that. I'm sure he knows this, because it came up in the way he wanted to use the military to deal with unrest, back in 2020. He shouldn't be saying it, but we should believe him when he does.

Did you watch the video?

Because no where does he actually say he would use the military against his political enemies.

He does mention the National Guard and Military, and says he would use them against the enemy within but that's not what his enemies are claiming he said.

Also, the National Guard is the part of the Military and they are already used domestically, in fact that is their purpose.

[sophisticles]

If it's even true, perhaps it was more like a upper limit than a lower one. Did you ever try reading any of these articles? The NYT is not a tabloid. He fears it because it's one of the best and most respected papers in the world.

Did you ever wonder why there's been such a campaign against the "mainstream media", for the past several decades? Dictators hate a free press, because it exposes their incompetence and misdeeds. You will never find a free press in any dictatorship. It's always one of the first things to go. Trump is more afraid than most, simply because he's more crooked and incompetent.

You should want a worldview that's as unbiased as possible. Even if you believe there's no such thing as an unbiased new source, the solution is to get your information from variety of news sources, not to simply reject everything but the explicitly partisan media that does nothing but confirm your preconceptions.

What are you afraid of? Is the potential for a little cognitive dissonance really such a threat, for a brain as big as yours?

I have lived in the NY area and have read all the papers, The NYT, Daily News, NY Post, they all have their own slant, the NYT leans heavily to the Left, the Post heavily to the Right, The Washington Post leans to the Left, Fox is clearly to the Right, MSNBC and CNN are clearly to the Left.

There has been a campaign against mainstream media because the bias has become so apparent that it is impossible to ignore and it has been that way since at least the 80's, when I had a high school teacher lament that all papers had effectively become yellow journalism.

I think it was the Daily News that published a front page story about Trump with huge picture, raking him over the coals, with a bs story that was debunked within 24 hours.

Ut took them 2 weeks to publish a correction, in the back of the newspaper right before the sports section starts, small 3 lines that said the story we ran was not correct, we retract the story. They didn't put a front page story to tell people they were wrong, they put a snippet that most people would miss.

I have been disgusted with main stream media long before Trump ever ran for President, but it took a whole other turn when he started his campaign.

For me what really drove the brainwashing home was Halloween weekend right before the 2020 elections.

One of the cable channels that runs horror movies all month of October was running a Resident Evil marathon.

At first I didn't notice what they were doing, it was almost subliminal but I realized what i was seeing when the commercials would come on.

During the movie, in the upper left hand corner, there was a tiny message overlayed that said "This is what happens when you don't vote".

The message would disappear during the commercials and come on during the movie.

RE is inspired by the video game about a contagion created by an evil corporation that is released on purpose and turns people into blood thirsty zombies.

Tell me that it's not a form of election interference, a form of brain washing, to display such a message during such a movie a couple of days before the election.

You can see the same shit this election, the main stream media is so in the bag for Kamala it's sad.

Trump says something they fact check him in real time, during the debate, even when the fact check is wrong, Kamala says something there's no pushback.

The day after the debate there was a website that was going to fact check both candidates, before they did they published a disclaimer apologizing for fact checking Kamala but claiming they wanted to be fair.

You need to see their version of "fair", with Trump they lambasted him, with her it was such a softball fact check I don't know why they bothered.

Or how about the MSG rally they just had, during the rally either CNN or MSNBC spliced video of the rally with video of a 1936 Nazi rally claiming they looked the same.

And CNN has run a story claiming that Trump's closing remarks the most extreme in modern history.

Come on, they don't even try to hide it.

[coder]

We treat China as if it's "a law-abiding democracy that upholds human rights", even though they believe in forced abortions, used tanks against it's own citizens on it's own land and is the last place on Earth that still has legalized slavery:

And clearly it was a bad decision to let them into the WTO, but now they're too rich and powerful and we have too much trade not to deal with them.

But, why do you want to repeat the same mistakes with North Korea, who's not only worse on all of those fronts but is effectively a state-backed criminal enterprise? Normalizing relations with China and letting it into the WTO didn't ultimately make it more free, so why would you think the outcome for North Korea would be any different?

We don't seem to have any problem with any of this so long as the Chinese keep making our iPhones and Nike sneakers at bargain basement hourly rates,

As you know, we're trying to reduce dependence on China, not increase it. A significant amount of that production has already moved to other countries.

I say let's expand this policy to NK, let them make some shoes and underwear for us as well.

When you made one decision that turns out bad, do you repeat the decision just for the sake of consistency? Or do you try to learn from your mistakes, and make better choices next time?

[coder]

In terms of Saddam, we could have tried to bribe him.

This isn't grounded in reality. The wealth he sought from Kuwait was so great that you're not going to find anyone willing to spend the amount it would've taken to make him give that up.

Plus, what kind of precedent do you think that would set? It's called a perverse incentive, because it rewards bad behavior. When you reward something, you should expect to get more of it, not less.

I remember an economist years ago did a study of the Vietnam War and concluded that if we had gone to every single Vietnamese Communist and offered them a thousand dollars a week for life in exchange to just leave and stop fighting, it still would have been much cheaper than what we ended up spending ...

You must be misremembering, because if we assume the population of North Vietnam was about 20M at the time, that's about $1T/year. The US GDP was only about $700B, in 1965.

The same point about perverse incentives applies here, as well. Even if North Koreans were satisfied with however much the real number would've been, you'd have more bad behavior stirred up elsewhere, by others hoping for the same kind of payout.

That said, I'm not defending the US involvement in Vietnam. I don't know enough to say how I think it should've been handled, but there are lots of situations you can't bribe your way out of.

One time I'm aware that the US did effectively buy peace is in Egypt, in order to settle tensions with the Israelis. In the long run, that probably just fueled Egyptian population growth beyond what they could ultimately support, leading to eventual unrest and the political turmoil they underwent, more than a decade ago.

I say give Putin territory to end the war, if you want to secretly arm Ukraine during peace time so be it

It's their country, so it should be their decision. They haven't given up, so why should we force them to?

That said, I think if you're going to support them, then it should be fully and not with such limits and constraints as we've been doing. Ukraine needs the ability to stop the attacks against it, and that includes being able to go after airstrips and missile launch sites in Russia.

and give the Palestinians a state they can call their own and let's end the fighting.

Again, nobody can decide this but Israel. I'll tell you this: Trump definitely won't give them shit. He doesn't actually care about achieving peace, there. He's buddies with Netanyahu, because he thinks it benefits him politically. The "Muslim Ban" President also has no love for the Palestinians.

It gets worse by the day and we are on the brink of a third world war, we need to do whatever must be done to prevent that.

Appeasement didn't ultimately stop WW II. It just made it worse, once it actually did happen.

I don't condone Trump's actions after the election, he should have congratulated Biden, said I will see you in four years and left quietly.

In all fairness however, i think he was so fed up with the Dems that he wanted to punish them and got really carried away.

There's good evidence his plan to dispute the election dates back to several days before the election, once it became clear he'd lose. That's when they hatched the plans about drafting slates of false electors and trying to have Pence reject vote tallies from certain states.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-jack-smiths-unsealed-court-filing-that-says-trump-resorted-to-crimes-after-2020-election

If Trump wins this time, he's said he'll fire Jack Smith and put an end to this case (which isn't something he can legally do, but a lot of people accept that he'll probably end the investigation one way or another). Otherwise, he'll have his day in court to challenge that evidence. The evidence seems pretty damning, which is why he's even more desperate to win this time.

What's odd is that Trump seems to feel he's being persecuted, but it sure seems like the DoJ dragged its feet on even bringing this case. They're aware that it looks bad to prosecute a former President, but I think it's a huge mistake not to, when the actual system of democracy is at stake. You can't afford to simply rely on elections to sort these things out, when politicians have tried to overturn them.

Before he ever ran, the Libs were spreading lies about Russia collusion, Russian puppet, Hillary called him that during a debate, after the election they claimed it was rigged, it was endless.

The Russian involvement in his 2016 campaign was real. Muller's investigation found numerous interactions and perhaps attempts at collusion, but no proof of actual collusion.

He also encountered about a dozen noted instances where his investigation was illegally obstructed, so it's quite possible that damning evidence was concealed or destroyed. Obstruction of justice is a crime and rarely something people do, unless they're trying to hide evidence of even more severe crimes.